Comments on: Editors should really proof read headlines

By: Seb Nemeth

Seb Nemeth — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:05:50 +0000

Pretty sure that army vehicle was one of the LandRovers up at Robertson Barrack in Darwin where I used to be… there’s a classic story about one being left behind on exercise up there.

By: alan

alan — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:55:48 +0000

Ha, well spotted, James.

By: James Frost

James Frost — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:42:04 +0000

It’s not just the headlines that the proof readers should be shot for :

“Utah Poisin Control centre responded to over 50,000 calls, the majority of which were about actual potential poisonings”

Is that an actual poisoning? Or a potential one? Or both perhaps?

By: alan

alan — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:19:18 +0000

Indeed it could, but that’s deliberate too.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:25:11 +0000

You know, Al, it just occured to me that your page “Dark Shorts” could be interpreted more than one way as well.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:20:57 +0000

Funny stuff. Colon’s name is actually pronounced like “Cologne,” so that’s probably how the writer sold the title to his editor, but I can’t imagine that neither one realized how people would interpret it.

By: alan

alan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:25:14 +0000

Ha! Very good point, Graham.

By: Graham

Graham — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:45:22 +0000

On the other hand, there are a number of Journalists out there bursting with pride that they got those headlines approved and published.

By: Karen Lee Field

Karen Lee Field — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:28:53 +0000

Hehe. Some of them are downright embarrassing. Thanks for the laugh.